Obama's Endgame for the Destruction of the United States
See also Part One:
Total Destruction of the U.S.: An Interview with Larry Grathwohl andPart Two: American Education: Rotting the Country from the Inside
In Part 1 of this interview with former FBI operative Larry
Grathwohl, we addressed the goals and methods of the Weatherman organization
and debunked recent attempts to dismiss their words and activities as
"youthful folly" or "typical of those days." In Part 2, we discussed the continuity of
purpose connecting the murderous radicalism of the Weather Underground
leadership with the progressive education and social justice advocacy of the "mature,"
"respectable" Ayers, Dohrn, Machtinger, Boudin, and others.
Here in the final installment, I ask Grathwohl about the
alarming cognitive dissonance of today's Middle America in the throes of the
"fundamental transformation" promised by Barack Obama, facilitated by
the progressive education and legal establishments, and put into practice by
federal agency appointees, colleges of education, union leaders, and
bureaucrats with established leftist pedigrees.
As an example of this dissonance, consider an American
colleague of mine here in Korea: a friendly, down-to-earth, educated family man
in his early thirties, and a teacher by profession. On the eve of the 2012 election, I asked him
whether it bothered him that Barack Obama had been so strongly endorsed by the
Communist Party. He said he had never
heard of that. When I explained that the
Party's official endorsement cited Obama's signature policy initiatives as the
surest means to achieving socialism in America, and that CPUSA leaders were
actively campaigning for Obama in swing states, my colleague fell silent for a
moment, and then said, matter-of-factly, "It doesn't really bother me; I
guess it might bother me if Obama were endorsing the Communist Party, but if
they're endorsing him, it doesn't matter."
I leave you with that thought, by way of introduction to
Part 3 of my conversation with Larry Grathwohl.
DJ: The Communist Party USA has officially endorsed and
vocally supported President Obama, and his administration has included several
people with well-known Marxist or Maoist views and affiliations. And yet most people, including many so-called
conservatives, shy away from this entire subject area, and they practically run
for the hills when anyone mentions Bill Ayers, re-education camps, or communism
in connection with current political events.
Why do you think there is such discomfort among Americans,
including supposed conservatives, when confronted with this issue?
LG: To answer this question in a word, I would say
"political correctness." Today
we live in a world where people are afraid to discuss issues of importance due
to a concern that they might say something wrong. We have a society where people can be
condemned for being on the wrong side of an issue, especially if you're in a
position where you could be labeled as a racist or an individual who has no
sensitivity towards those who are in some way in need. Today, [concern about] Marxism is out of
vogue, and the Chinese are our friends and are lending us money in order for
our government to continue to exist. How
can you question this? Conservatives are
afraid of being labeled as mean or uncaring and want to maintain a civil image
in the midst of this chaos and confusion.
Senator McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign refused to confront
Barack Obama regarding his ties to Bill Ayers the unrepentant terrorist. When others brought up the possibility of
Obama's connection to the Muslim world, McCain became angry and turned
away. By doing so, he negated any
possibility of forcing the two-year member of the Senate to explain his
sympathetic positions towards Islamic terrorism and the domestic terrorism that
his friend Bill Ayers had participated in [during] the '70s and the '80s.
Basically, this is the problem we face today. If you criticize the president for any of his
policies, you are racist, and your argument ends. There aren't defenses for these kinds of
accusations, and it completely eliminates any possibility of discussion and
compromise. This works wonderfully for
the Democrats and their policies, and it puts the Republicans and conservatives
in very un-defensible positions. The
bravery or whatever you care to call it simply no longer exists [when] people
who are involved in the political process are more concerned with the next
election than they are with what's best and right for America. I often wonder what would've happened during
the Revolutionary War if people of this stature were to be the ones we were
dependent upon to defeat the British. I
wonder if this tendency can be overcome or eliminated.
DJ: How frustrating is it for you, having seen what you have
seen, to encounter this kind of reluctance from people who should be your
allies?
LG: While I do have some allies, which includes those who
have the courage to speak the truth and to stand up for what's right, the fact
is that it is extremely frustrating that people are simply unable to recognize
the truth when it is presented to them along with the evidence which exists in
the WU's activities, writings, and continued attack on our institutions. As for me, the frustration is simply a greater
motivation to accomplish my mission of enlightening people as to the true goals
and objectives of the WU and the means that they used in their attempt to
achieve the destruction of the United States.
DJ: Many people dispute President Obama's claim that Bill
Ayers was just "a guy in my neighborhood." And Ayers himself has spoken of being
ecstatic when Obama was elected in 2008.
What connection or consistency do you see between the goals and/or
methods pursued or promoted by the WU and those pursued and promoted by the
Obama administration?
LG: The goals and objectives of these two individuals are
the same. Bill Ayers tried first to
destroy this country through violence.
Having failed, the WU determined to accomplish this through the system
and in my opinion Barack Obama was recruited as a means to accomplish this
goal. ...
The connections between Barack and Bill include having
shared an office for at least three years in Chicago, being co-members on two boards
in which Barack was the chairman, and one of which was called the Annenberg
Challenge[, which] was charged with the dissemination of approximately $100
million to educational institutions in the Chicago area. Bill Ayers has been associated with the writing
of Barack's book, Dreams from My Father, through content analysis, and on three
occasions Bill has admitted that he wrote this book and then later retracted
his comments. It would seem apparent to
me that individuals who have been this closely associated through many years
have a common knowledge [of] one another's political aims and goals. This can only mean that they are in
agreement, and while Bill has utilized the educational system to further his
objective, Barack Obama has chosen politics.
Keep in mind that Barack Obama's first political fundraiser was held at
Bill's and Bernardine's home while Barack was running for the Illinois state
legislature. This is his first
fundraiser, and Bill and Bernardine are involved -- can there be any doubt as
to the extent of the relationship that exists between these individuals?
Obama is in the process of attacking all institutions of our
society and government, [including] the First Amendment by stating that it's
the conservative media that keeps the Republicans from negotiating with him;
the Second Amendment [through] his attempts to impose restrictions on gun
ownership, procurement of ammunition, and whatever other means he can devise;
and lastly, there is his attack on the freedom of religion by trying to impose
birth control and abortion under the Obama health care act on churches who run
such institutions as hospitals, schools, rests homes, and other services.
DJ: You have spent a good portion of your life trying to
warn Americans about the specific intentions of the young leftist radicals of
the late 1960s. How do you answer people
who might say that those leftists are older now, their radical days are in the
past, and there is no longer anything to worry about from them?
LG: The fact is, Bill Ayers and many of his comrades from
those days of strategic sabotage in the underground movement have not changed
their goal or their purpose. Bill has
made this very clear in his book, Fugitive Days, in which he makes no apology
for the death and destruction the WU were responsible for and even seems to
revel in what he perceives as the glory of the revolution. In his book Underground, Mark Rudd also makes
no apologies for his activities and even admits prior knowledge to the bomb
factory in Greenwich Village in which three members of the WU were killed. He states that Terry Robbins had told him of
the purpose of their bomb creations and that they were to be used at Fort Dix,
New Jersey during an enlisted men's dance and at the officers' club. These bombs were adulterated with fence
staples and roofing nails, whose purpose can only be to inflict as much death
and injury as possible. There are many
other individuals from the WU who have written books and also regret only that
they did not succeed or that they didn't do enough. Some individuals were involved in a Brinks
armored car robbery during which two policemen and a Brinks guard were
killed. Kathy Boudin is no longer behind
bars, but her husband, accomplice David Gilbert, is still in jail and writing books
about love and the revolution and has many supporters [who are] trying to get
him released to this very day.
It simply cannot be said that these people have allowed the
last three or four decades to change their political beliefs or political
goals. Instead, they have been involved
with the Occupy Wall Street movement and the encouragement of young people to
defy authority and to create as much chaos and turmoil as possible. Bill has actually attended Occupy meetings
during which he instructed individuals on how to accomplish the most
destruction of property and confrontation with authority and in a way that
makes it appear as if they are the victims.
This I know for a fact, as people who are friendly to me and have
attended some of these meetings have reported these facts.
Van Jones, who was appointed as the green jobs czar by
President Obama, is very active [in the] political movement in the Bay Area,
particularly in Oakland and Berkeley. He
has associations with Bill Ayers and has attended Occupy meetings in which they
were both in attendance.
It is simply impossible to conclude that any of these people
have in any way, shape, or form been influenced to change their political
beliefs or their goal and objectives by the passage of time. They still believe that the United States is
the root of all evil and must be destroyed, whatever it takes. Innocent lives or genuine disagreement is not
a qualification for being spared, and it is my belief that Bill and people who
follow Bill are consumed with this hatred for this country and a desire to be
in control of life and death, and this may be the underlying reason for the
personality disorders they obviously suffer from.
Author's concluding note: Larry Grathwohl provides powerful
witness to the hatred the Weathermen bear for the United States as founded, and
their utter disregard for human life in pursuing their transformative
agenda. I do not believe that
Grathwohl's perspective is infallible any more than I believe that of anyone
else. I do believe, however, that he
speaks sincerely, and from a deep understanding of the minds and hearts of the
Weather Underground radicals.
Rational observers know that Ayers's relationship with Obama
is much more developed than either man has publicly acknowledged. And it is undeniable that these two
progressive "reformers" have achieved a degree of mainstream success
and influence in their respective fields of endeavor, education, and politics
that would have been inconceivable a hundred years ago, when Ayers's educational
role model, John Dewey, was beginning progressivism's long march through the
souls of America's children. A century
of progressive schooling made Barack Obama's presidency possible. In turn, with a president openly bent on
transforming America according to a collectivist "social justice"
agenda, public education itself, under the leadership of Ayers and his
colleagues, may reveal itself ever more fully as the socialist indoctrination
center Dewey could only dream and scheme of.
As Grathwohl warns, Ayers is urging followers to see that
they are "very close to accomplishing their mission of changing America
forever." The circle envisioned by
early Western progressive intellectuals such as Antonio Gramsci is almost
complete: government schools prepare the souls of men for subservience and
dependency, and the progressive intelligentsia churn out attractive demagogues
to appeal to this forcibly debased population's need for a provider. Eventually, all that is preserved of the
history of modern liberty will be the veneer of democracy masking the
tyrannical structure beneath, as an emasculated humanity "freely
chooses" its own slave masters.
